Calling Conrad Tester! Calling Conrad Tester!

This hoary marmot had never before heard the sound or smelled the fumes of an ATV
The “Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012” (HR 4089) is one of a long list of bills that are part of a full frontal attack on our wilderness system. When I was working these issues back in the 1990’s, the ever-present threat was the loggers, who like so many others, cannot conceive of the concept “enough.” They wanted everything, every log, and the idea of setting land apart merely to preserve it was foreign to them. That is the ethos of the corporation, and while corporations are comprised of human beings, corporations manifest the worst aspects of humans – greed and indifference to nature and human aesthetics. In fact, that is what corporate structure promotes, and what the law mandates – profit before all.

Loggers are still with us, and presented their agenda (again – it’s old wine in a new bottle) in Sen Jon Tester’s (D-MT) “Forest Jobs and Recreation Act,” like the Heritage Act, a name crafted around a long oak table in a room deep in the bowels of an ad agency. Their job is to sell, and the naming of a bill (Clear Skies, anyone?) is as important as any other aspect of getting anti-social, anti-commons, anti-community legislation passed.

SHA2012 does the following, according to Wilderness Watch of Missoula:

HR 4089 would give hunting, fishing, recreational shooting, and fish and wildlife management top priority in Wilderness, rather than protecting the areas’ wilderness character, as has been the case for nearly 50 years. This bill would allow endless, extensive habitat manipulations in Wilderness under the guise of “wildlife conservation” and for providing hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting experiences. It would allow the construction of roads to facilitate such uses and would allow the construction of dams, buildings, or other structures within Wildernesses. It would exempt all of these actions from National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review. Finally, HR 4089 would remove Wilderness Act prohibitions against motor vehicle use for fishing, hunting, or recreational shooting, or for wildlife conservation measures.

In other words, the bill overrides every important provision of the 1964 Wilderness Act.

Wilderness advocates are always playing defense. Industry comes at them from every conceivable angle, so that Tester’s FJRA is merely another industry push using a different vehicle. Such thrusts used to come from former Sen Conrad Burns, defeated by Tester in 2006.

So it should come as no surprise that the authors of this bill in looking for a senate sponsor (it has already passed the house) are knocking on the door of Jon Tester. This message came to me from Matt Koehler:

According to some news reports, Senator Tester is the guy the NRA and Safari Club are hoping will sponsor the bill in the Senate. They’ll need Democrat support and Tester is a target for obvious reasons. People should also be aware that the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Boone and Crockett Club and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership are pushing to pass the bill.

This serves to emphasize again that there are no protections for our commons in the two-party-one-financier system.

There are some stoic characters behind our wilderness system – Frank Church, Ken and Florence Baldwin, Jon Muir and Bob Marshall, Aldo Leopold and the Archduid, David Brower. These are the big names, but wilderness as we know it came about because of thousands of like-minded activists who worked together to exert pressure on elected officials to get the bill passed. It’s a shame that certain wilderness areas carry the names of Lee Metcalf and Frank Church – good men though they were, public lands should not be named after them. They were mere servants. Far better to have a River of No Return Wilderness or Bear Trap Canyon or Spanish Peaks than to name our precious heritage after mere politicians.

But our forebears knew to play to ego to get bills passed. I long ago suggested, in this vein, that the Berkeley Pit in Butte be renamed the Conrad Burns-Max Baucus National Recreation Area. Perhaps if we named something after Tester, he would back off. So in honor of his post-election treatment of environmentalists, I suggest that area northwest of Missoula be renamed the “Jon Tester Great Burn Wilderness.” Maybe that will pacify him.

10 thoughts on “Calling Conrad Tester! Calling Conrad Tester!

  1. Everything public — public land, public air and water, public laws, public schools, etc. — is under assault. Since Carter and then Reagan, bipartisanship has been a kinder, gentler way of describing neoliberalism. Deregulate, privatize, and bleed government services (then outsource) that help the 99%. Nothing has changed.

    Like

  2. “Senator Tester is the guy the NRA and Safari Club are hoping will sponsor the bill in the Senate.”

    Emphasis on “Are hoping.” I got the same message. Here’s hoping Jon doesn’t do it.

    But Mark, can’t you see that this is the populism, the popular control of resources, that you are always going on about? Tester is doing the popular thing, representing his constituents.

    Like

      1. No, Mark, it doesn’t. I have no doubt that much of what Burns did was popular. That, however, doesn’t make it good policy. Unlike you, I don’t see ‘populism’ as a universal positive. A great many bad policies are popular.

        Like

        1. Given some evidence, your argument that Tester is merely abiding by the public will would be more convincing. Other factors weigh in – his supposed differing qualities that set him apart from the right wing, and his financial backing.

          How quickly you allow him to be just another politician while at the same time touting the importance of keeping him in office. From where I stand, your argument sounds quite unconvincing. He’s either a breed apart, or not. From an environmentalist’s standpoint, nothing has changed, Burns to Tester. Same animal, different party.

          Like

        2. xxxxxxxx (Polish Wolf): Did you actually read through what you wrote here in short succession? I’m sorry, but I’m having a hard time making much sense of your logic here.

          You wrote:

          “Mark, can’t you see that this is the populism, the popular control of resources, that you are always going on about? Tester is doing the popular thing, representing his constituents.”

          “I have no doubt that much of what Burns did was popular. That, however, doesn’t make it good policy. Unlike you, I don’t see ‘populism’ as a universal positive. A great many bad policies are popular.”

          Like

  3. A small fraction of Montanans buy a hunting license. And there is not a shred of evidence that clearcutting our public forests at taxpayer expense is popular. Or that chipping whole trees and shipping them to China is popular. Propping up government sponsored industry is popular? There has been no polling since 1988, when Lee found out wilderness is popular.

    Like

Leave a reply to mahmet7 Cancel reply